Tuesday, October 28, 2014

These two items are related through the pious politically correct myth that being reared by a homosexual "couple" does no harm to children. Actually, of late, the leftists have ramped up the myth -- some of them are now asserting that being reared by one's *actual* Father and Mother is detrimental to children, and that being reared by a homosexual "couple" not only does no harm to children, but is beneficial to them.

The Other McCain:Another Feminist ‘Success’ Story -- "The Hill-Meyer family must be so proud of their son/”daughter,” but I’m pretty sure his/”her” lesbian mothers can relax and stop worrying that anyone might ever call them “Grandma.” The feminist success story concludes with a Darwinian dead end."

Sunday, October 26, 2014

“The point is that in many contexts the difference between people’s knowledge, character, abilities, relationship, and authority mean it is perfectly appropriate for one to tell the other to do something that she herself would not do.”

“A loving parent sets their 9 year old daughter a bedtime of 8:30 pm. This parent’s command reflects their loving character, it does not follow, however, that being loving requires that the parent herself must go to bed at 8:30 pm.”

I *do* wish people who are not leftists would check themselves before using leftist-political language. If you’re talking about “a loving parent”, then the correct pronoun to use is neither “their” nor “she/her/her”, it’s “he/his/him” If you’re talking about a her, them you’re not talking about a mere “parent”, you’re talking about a mother.

====
How often do you use that damnable leftist “gender-inclusive language” to refer to a generic/non-specific murderer … or plumber … as “she”? Never, of course.

Ilion, I was educated in NZ universities, in some subjects its actually required that you use language like that as part of the style guide. I don’t agree with this but I chose to pick my battles. Its become habit

The same is true with my readers, I am aware what I say is going to be controverted by some people so again I pick my battles and try and give people less to complain about.

Every time I have ever chided a non-leftist for employing leftist "gender inclusive language", he has offered *exactly* this excuse. He (by which pronoun I mean both those I have chided in the past and Mr Flannagan presently) is claiming that it's just a stylistic thing, that it's not very important, that it doesn't mean anything.

To which I say, if it doesn't mean anything, then why do it? Do you normally make it a habit when trying to communicate your thought to another to say/write things that don't *mean* anything?

If "gender inclusive language" is just a stylistic thing, then the next time the thought you're trying to get across involves discussing a murderer, or a plumber, why not refer to him as "she"? Ah! But that would be against the rules, wouldn't it? The anti-grammatical "she" is to be employed only in situations or references that one considers to be "positive". Thus, if one is commenting favorably on solders or police officers, then the generic solder or police officer is a “she”; but if one is accusing soldiers (in general) of being “baby killers” or accusing police officers (in general) of “police brutality”, then they are “he”.

If "gender inclusive language" is not very important, then why not stop intentionally employing it? Ah! But then the leftists would turn their sights on you all the sooner, wouldn't they?

Matt,
You're a Christian -- you don't have to option of surrendering to lies, and using leftist politicized language is exactly that.

Look, I cannot take seriously, in any regard, anyone who uses "gender-inclusive language" (unless he's using it to mock it), for it is an instance of intellectual dishonesty. And I don't want relegate you to the not-to-be-taken-seriously category. Generally, I *immediately* stop reading a person when he uses "gender-inclusive language" non-ironically (*).

If you were speaking/writing in, say, Spanish to a Spanish-speaking audience, would you not carefully use proper Spanish gendered pronouns in the way that the rules of Spanish require? Or if you were merely speaking/writing to fellow English speakers and refering to Spahish persons, would you not carefully distinguish "Latinos" from "Latinas"? Or, given that you are a New Zealander, if you were seeking to speak/write Maori, would you not do you best to learn and observe all the rules of that language?

Yet, when it comes to your own native language, you choose intentionally to use the corrupt, and corrupting, language of leftist anti-masculine politics.

What? Do you really think that the leftists are going to overlook you, when it's your torn to be broken to the briddle, just because you're already using leftist language to signal your coolness? Not in the least. Your choice to use leftist politicized language tells them that you're already half-broken, that the battle for your soul, and your balls, is already half-won.

(*) From my point of view, I'm bending over backwards to give you a chance to stop behaving like an man-hating leftist. So far, what you've done is make excuses: but, if you don't agree with man-hating leftism, then stop speaking/writing -- and thus, thinking -- as though you do.

When you use "gender inclusive language", you are not honoring your wife's femininity; you are denegrating your own masculinity.

"Have you not heard that in the beginning God created them male and female?"

The point of "gender inclusive language" is to deny this fundamental truth, and to make the thinking of it into a thought-crime, and ultimately to make it unthinkable. Using "gender inclusive language" isn't a minor foible, it is active collaboration with the Adversary.

When you use "gender inclusive language", it is not *simply* that you are not honoring your wife's femininity and denegrating your own masculinity, but that you are *also* denegrating her femininity.

"Gender inclusive language", and feminism in general, is rooted in hatred of the feminine. To be sure, feminists hate men and masculinity. But that's more in the nature of sour grapes. What they really hate is womanhood, what they really hate is that "in the beginning God created them male *and* female." What they deny, and want to force *you* to deny, is that it is Good that "in the beginning God created them male *and* female."

edit 2014/10/27:
When one uses "gender inclusive language", one is participating in series of leftist lies, which includes:
* lying about Christianity
* lying about Western civilization
* lying about one's own particular people/culture
* lying about all the non-leftist men of one's civilization and particular people/culture
* (possibly) lying about one's own self, if one is a man and not a leftist (if one *is* a leftist, then one almost always *is* a misogynist)

Friday, October 24, 2014

Something to keep in mind when The Usual Suspects start spouting The Usual Hemming and Hawing about Islam and Moslems --

There is no more such a thing as "moderate Islam" than there is such a thing as "moderate Christianity".

A "moderate Christian" is someone who claims to be a Christian *and* who simultaneously holds that Christianity just isn't all that important to how one conducts one's life. A "moderate Christian" is someone who isn't trying to emulate Christ -- whom Christianity holds to be the perfect man whose life and deeds all persons should seek to emulate ... which is to say, someone who is not really a Christian.

Similarly with Islam: A "moderate Moslem" is someone who claims to be a Moslem *and* who simultaneously holds that Islam just isn't all that important to how one conducts one's life. A "moderate Moslem" is someone who isn't trying to emulate Mohammed -- whom Islam holds to be the perfect man whose life and deeds all persons should seek to emulate ... which is to say, someone who is not really a Moslem.

Now, the thing is, one can never rule out the possibility that a "moderate Christian" may decide that he wants to be a real Christian. Likewise, one can never rule out the possibility that a "moderate Moslem" may decide that he wants to be a real Moslem. But, the *other* thing is that when a "moderate Christian" starts trying to become a real Christian, he becomes a better, a more moral, person. Contrarily, when a "moderate Moslem" starts trying to become a real Moslem, he becomes a worse, a less moral, person.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

A wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, The Hitching Post, run by a man and wife team, each of them an ordained minister, has been informed that they could face jail time or fines if they refuse - as they intend to refuse - to perform same sex mirages. ...

Now the argument is that they will be forced by the state to perform same sex mirages in their role as businessmen, and not in their role as ministers. Because this is an “open to the public” thing, like a restaurant, they must serve whoever walks through the door. Simple pimple, right? Well, not exactly. In the first place, I see no reason why they should be forced to perform same sex mirages any more than our local La Casa Lopez should be forced to serve up Chinese, however much an urgent patron wants him some almond chicken. Their defense would run along the lines of “we’re a Mexican restaurant. We don’t serve Chinese food. We don’t know how to make Chinese food.”

So this is where appeal will be made to the great advances accomplished by the Civil Rights movement back in the sixties. Back in the day, whites could refuse to serve blacks in their restaurants, and it wasn’t that long ago. It was that way in the town where I grew up, and who wants to return to those days? The claim is made that “you opponents of same sex mirage want to return us to those days.” This particular point is the central slippery trick in this whole mess.

Before proceeding further, I do want to say that we should be far better masters of the distinction between sins and crimes before we go about trying to outlaw sins. Because we tried to eliminate the sin of racial prejudice in public spaces without grasping that essential distinction, we have ended up by mandating the commission of sin in public spaces. Essaying to stamp out one sin we have made another sin, one that is far worse, mandatory. Let me go over that again. We have outlawed one sin, and the cost of doing it is that we have made another sin compulsory. People who do that shouldn’t be in charge of things.

Run this out. Suppose The Hitching Post was owned by a couple that had sincere religious convictions against miscegenation. This would mean that they would want the right to refuse to perform a ceremony between a black man and a white woman. Now I take it as a given that such a refusal on their part would be sinful. But should it be illegal?

And even if it should be illegal, how does it follow that if the state can make someone quit being sinful that this somehow authorizes the state to make people start being sinful?

So this is the point where our pretended moral arbiters try to retreat into moral relativism - they say that we use terms like “sin” and we quote Bible verses and all, but not everyone has the same understanding of morality. Who is to say what sins are? Who is to tell us the difference between right and wrong? This is a pluralistic society, and we should know that we cannot impose our own moral codes on others who do not share them. Don’t you know anything, rube? Well, okay, but if we can’t impose a particular morality on people who don’t share that morality, then why did you impose your morality on the bigoted restaurant owner? This is not a difficult question to understand, and I am willing to wait for an answer. By what standard are you making your moral decisions, and why should they be obligatory for others who do not share your devotion to those standards?

By no standard at all, of course, for leftists are *always* lying hypocrites.

Surely, Gentle Reader recalls, oh, just last week, when we were assured that the judicial over-reach imposition of the same-sex mirage regime would not affect "your marriage" (meaning *real* marriages) and that no one would ever be trying to force Christians to violate their consciences over same-sex mirage.

... The Bible speaks on this subject with such clarity that the only way this current homo-overreach can conclude is by trying to take our Bibles away. As long as we have our Bibles, their contentions will be unable to get the clown face paint off. But we live in an era that has difficulty in understanding when an argument is ad absurdum, and so I apologize for bringing it up. No need to take our Bibles. Really.

In the end, they *must* come after our Bibles -- and ultimately our lives -- for the logic of their irrational-and-sinful position commands it.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Adventist Mission Doctor Speaks Out on the Ebola Crisis and Foreign Aid -- The leftists who control the government of the US aren't really interested in helping the people of Liberia stamp out this disease. Rather, this is just one more excuse to waste money. The leftists will never forgive Reagan for bankrupting the USSR ... and they fully intend to return the favor.

So, rather that working at trying to solve his real problem, this mentally-and-emotionally -- and spiritually -- damaged man was sexually mutilated using funds forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Britain. Now, he wants a do-over ... using even more funds forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Britain. But, of course, there is no do-over: even if he does ever get past his real problem, his body will now always be sexually mutilated.

Well, at least they're not talking about "solving" his problem via lethal injection, as was done last year to a "transsexual" woman in Belgium whose "sex-change" to pseudo-male didn't make her happy, after all.

What this means is that hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Sweden were used to transplant someone else's uterus into this woman and keep her immune system from rejecting it long enough for her to carry a child (expensively conceived via IVT) to 'viability'. Which means that these same hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Sweden were not used for something of real medical benefit to anyone.

The problem is that when government controls health care, they spend the money on things that will buy them more votes. People who need expensive care like this definitely do not get treated. In government-run health care, government takes control of the money being spent by individuals on actual health care in the private sector. They then redirect that money into public sector spending on “health-related” services. Instead of helping people who are really sick, government-run systems cut lose those sick people and concentrate on buying perfectly healthy people things like condoms, abortions, IVF and sex changes. They spread the money around to more people in order to buy more votes. The main goal is to get the majority of people dependent on government so that they continue to vote for bigger government. The few people who need expensive health care? They can just go die in a ditch.